The other thing I would say, is that in some ways the entire classification of Bitcoin vs alts is somewhat non-sensical.
There is only really one Bitcoin, and that is Bitcoin, (with Bitcoin being the ultimate defense against the imperfections of fiat currencies). In that sense there is not really any "alt" to Bitcoin at all. And indeed, this is also why its rather disingenuous for promoters of alt coins to promote them as alternatives to Bitcoin. Because they are not. For anyone who does not understand the fundamental distinction between Bitcoin and "alts" (and there are still many people who don't), I would urge those people to really do their homework. Understand proof of work and why that is important. Understand decentralization, and why that is important. Understand liquidity, and why that is important. Understand why Bitcoin is a commodity, and not an unregistered security. Understand Metcalf's law, and why that is important. Understand the difference between proof of work mining, and pre-mined coins, and why that is important.
A more helpful approach would be to understand that there are a infinite number of investments which are alternatives to Bitcoin - these include, bonds, stocks, property, venture capital, currencies, gold, art, collectables, private equity, venture capital, etc. "Alts" in the crypto sense, are in ill-defined combination of some of these qualities, represented by a token which represents a stake in the venture, albeit with huge risk and lack of investor protections compared to others types of investments.
It is also for this reason, that the entire discussion of "Bitcoin dominance" vs alts, is increasingly considered by many to be rather pointless.